The Cavalier daily :: Wednesday, December 10, 1969 :: University of Virginia Library

Charles Howard is a young man
of whom most of you have
probably never heard. I certainly
don't know anything about his past
and, until Monday evening, I knew
nothing of his present or his future.
Yet in Minor Hall night before last
it was Mr. Howard who, playing the
title role, almost carried the Virginia
Players' production of "Pantagleize"
into the realm of college
theatrical success.

Almost? Yes, for although the
evening has much to recommend it,
there are several weaknesses which
I'm afraid might take precedence in
the average theatergoer's mind. The
trouble, however, rests in the play
and not in the production. Director
David Weiss, set designer La Vahn
Hoh, Mr. Howard and all involved
have reason to be proud. I only
seriously criticize their choice of
vehicles.

"Pantagleize" was written by
the late Belgian playwright Michel
de Ghelderode. It is about one day
in the life of an Everyman figure, a
chap who is forty years old and
whose "destiny has never begun."
He's a simpleton, a forgotten
member of an increasingly materialistic
society.

The day we meet him is the only
day in his entire life that matters. It
is the day of his involvement.
Unwittingly, he triggers a revolution
by saying "What a lovely day!"
(a "magic" phrase, the importance
and meaning of which should be
made clear much earlier in the
proceedings). After he robs the
State Bank at the request of the
Jewess whom he loves, he revels in
the fact that he thinks he has found
his destiny. But his triumph is
short-lived; the girl dies and, as a
result of his involvement in the
unsuccessful revolution, he is, once
again, a loser.

We accept Pantagleize as a
character because he is so pitiable,
innocent, and likeable. The play's
main problem is in its other
characters. We have the feeling
throughout that they are symbols
or representatives instead of individuals.
They are too mechanical.
According to Gheiderode, this is "a
farce to make you sad." But how
can such a goal be achieved if the
characters are not totally human, if
they are not specific beings? It's a
simple case of the author giving
priority to his sociological purpose
and carelessly allowing it to interfere
with his dramatic purpose.

It would also be helpful if the
characters were defined when they
first appear so that their actions
would not seem unmotivated at the
time. For instance, in the first
scene, we do not know why
Bamboola, the Negro servant, goes
wild when Pantagleize utters his
magic phrase. We soon learn the
reason, but Bamboola's reaction
would not only be more meaningful,
but more humorous if we knew
the "why" beforehand.

I do not want to give the
impression that "Pantagleize" is an
awful play, because it isn't. There
are a number of scenes that work
and, in so doing, evoke laughter.
Mr. Weiss' smart staging usually
capitalizes on these. He has also
taken a song called "The Blue
Tattoo," (different, I believe, from
the one the script calls for), whose
use is primarily to bridge two
scenes late in the play, and has
made it one of the evening's
highlights.

It is in his casting and directing
of Mr. Howard that Mr. Weiss
deserves his highest praise. From his
facial expressions right down to his
half-step walk, the star reminded
me of Charlie Brown in the
"Peanuts" comic strip. This is
meant as a compliment because
there is much similarity between
Pantagleize and Snoopy's owner.
Unfortunately, Pantagleize does not
have for supporting "friends" such
distinct, recognizable and well
drawn personalities as Lucy, Linus
and their cohorts.

One measure of Mr. Howard's
talent is the fact that he often comes
close to upstaging the other actors,
all of whom are surprisingly good.
Jerry Vessels as Bamboola and Eric
Singerman, Robin J. M. Mason, and
Lon Davis as his fellow revolutionaries
do fine jobs, I particularly
enjoyed Russell Gustafson's portrayal
of the cunning policeman
and W. Simpers' turn as the broadly
comic, bungling General MacBoom.
Patrick Stoner has his part of the
Distinguished Council well under
control as does Peter Webb as the
Generalissimo. Llsi Skeels struggles
valiantly though one-dimensionally
with the much too shallow character
of the Jewess.

I would not say that the Players'
efforts have been in vain. It is not a
boring evening and therefore not a
forgettable failure. But it is an
evening whose only claim to sustained
theatrical excitement is in
Mr. Howard's performance.